Developer Mark Croce will be receiving a $1.35 million hand-out from New York State tax payers to turn a vacant downtown building into an “upscale boutique hotel at Franklin and West Huron streets.” Croce is “convinced there’s a market for an upscale boutique hotel that offers larger rooms with some unique amenities.”

This handout is coming in the form of a Restore NY grant which is intended to “stabilize neighborhoods and revitalize urban areas.”

Which neighborhood is being stabilized here?

Who will benefit from this kind of urban revitalization? The “upscale” market Croce is convinced is out there–we’ll say those households making more than $150,000/year–accounts for about 3% of households in Buffalo.

In other words, $1.35 million of public money will be used to provide a tiny part of the community with presidential suites, pent-houses, and “unique amenities.”

This is money that could be used to stabilize or revitalize the neighborhoods of the 30.3% of people living in poverty in Buffalo, still the third poorest city in the country. This money could even be used to provide basic housing to the hundreds of individuals and families that are homeless on any given day in Buffalo.

Instead this public money will be used to help a wealthy developer provide upscale hotel suites for wealthy travelers and community members.

According to a recent Buffalo News article the New York Power Authority is working on a deal with Yahoo!, the Internet giant, to bring them into WNY. The speculated deal would include giving Yahoo! power discounts totaling $101.2 million over the next 15 years. The plant Yahoo! is planning to build would create 125 jobs, which means that New York Power Authority would be spending $809,940 over the course of the contract for every job created.

A couple of quotes from the article about the potential deal:

Referring to the amount being spent on each new job, “‘It’s exceptionally high, even for high-tech,’ said Greg LeRoy, a national expert on economic development subsidy programs.”

“‘There are a few other deals we’ve seen over the years in that neighborhood, but it’s stratospheric. It doesn’t have much company,’ said LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, a nonprofit research and advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.”

“‘On a number basis,’ said Power Authority President Richard Kessel, ‘this doesn’t look like the greatest deal in the world, but we can’t look at the numbers alone.'”

Power Authority President Richard Kessel is correct; we can’t just look at the numbers. We also have to look at what kinds of jobs these are and where they will be located. As far as location, Yahoo! is looking at building its plant in rural areas like Cambria, Lockport or Pembroke. What kinds of jobs will these be? An interviewee in the article described these jobs as “high-tech”. This means they are sure to require at least a bachelor’s degree or some training.

A quick look at the NFTA’s website shows no public transportation to Cambria or Pembroke from Buffalo and no morning bus runs to Lockport from Buffalo. There also does not appear to be any scholarship or training programs for interested but unqualified workers associated with the deal. There will basically be no way for a low-income individual living in Buffalo to get a job at this potential plant if they do not have all the required qualifications and even if they do have the right qualifications, there will be no way for them to get to the job if they do not own a car, which is impossible for most low-income people.

If the deal goes through, this publicly subsidized plant will not create living wage jobs for the 1/3 of Buffalo that lives in poverty. This is not to say that communities like Cambria, Lockport, and Pembroke don’t need these jobs but could that $101.2 million do more good for more people in our community if it were given to a company that agreed to locate close to the areas that need the jobs most? To companies that will train some of the city’s thousands of unemployed workers?

If the city, county, or state ever hopes to end poverty and homelessness in Buffalo, it must make poverty its most important focus. In deals like the one being hashed out with Yahoo!, our administrators and elected officials must ask themselves if huge deals like these will create good jobs close to the communities that need the jobs most. Looking at the Poverty Challenge Budget it becomes clear that one of the major things that keeps people in poverty is their low-income. Many of the jobs that are available in the city are service sector jobs that pay very little, are often part-time, and offer few if any benefits. If the majority of jobs in a community pay poverty-level wages, then the majority of people in that community will stay in poverty.

Another aspect of the Poverty Challenge Budget that is sure to keep people in poverty is transportation. Using private transportation (or owning a car) will automatically blow your budget and put you into debt. But most of the decent paying jobs are outside the city, in places where there is little or no viable public transportation. The job that may help you get out of poverty is then out of reach becasue you can’t afford the transportation to get there and you have to settle for the minimum wage jobs in your neighborhood (which are harder than ever to find becasue of the current recession).

You could go down the list of items and expenses in the Poverty Challenge Budget starting with the low-income (due to the lack of jobs or the existence of only low paying jobs in your community), the high cost of rent/utilities, the cost of transportation, the cost of cell phones (very necessary for prospective employers to call you back) and see all the expenses that keep 1/3 of Buffalo in poverty. If our public officials ignore the poverty level budget and don’t address the need for living wage jobs, affordable rent, affordable transportation, etc. then thousands of people in Buffalo will continue to be impoverished.

The Yahoo! deal is another decision being made by public officials that does not have ending poverty as a primary concern or even as any concern at all. Deals that will create the kinds of jobs that will allow people to get out of poverty must be the ones we consider first if we have any desire to end poverty in Buffalo. The $101.2 million deal with Yahoo! is a deal that is being created without any concern for the thousands of impoverished people in our community. (more…)

James McKinney, a level 3 sex offender, is completing his prison term and needs a place to live. A state supreme court justice was ready to send him to his mother’s home in North Tonawanda until he reconsidered and decided to send him to an apartment that houses homeless welfare clients. He decided against sending the man to his mother’s home because “It’s the epitome of a family, suburban residential area. It’s not appropriate [for McKinney].”

Certainly this man poses a threat to whatever community he moves to. The judge even found in his trial that this man “had a mental abnormality” but the judge “decided against committing him.” Understandably, the judge feels it is inappropriate to allow McKinney to move back to his mother’s home. But for this judge it is apparently more appropriate to send him to a city of Niagara Falls apartment that may be housing homeless families. Every family, regardless of income, deserves to feel safe in the place that they live. Just because a family lives in the suburbs and has a higher income does not mean that they should receive preferential treatment when it comes to the placement of sex offenders.

This is a very difficult and unfortunate situation. But even so, the safety of all people regardless of income must be ensured. Hopefully the judge will be able to work with the parole officers to find a more appropriate place for Mr. McKinney.

Beyond the safety of homeless people, this story also brings attention to how the criminal justice system deals with sex offenders like McKinney who are finishing up their sentences.

This is not just an isolated issue either. Over at change.org’s End Homelessness blog, Shannon Moriarty is also talking about homeless sex offenders. As Moriarty states at the end of her blog post, a more humane way of dealing with homeless sex offenders who are completing their sentences needs to be developed.

High-risk sex offender ordered to live in Falls building housing the homeless

By Thomas J. Prohaska

NEWS NIAGARA REPORTER

LOCKPORT — A sex offender regarded as likely to reoffend because of a “mental abnormality” will live in Niagara Falls, not in his mother’s North Tonawanda home, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Unfortunately New York, a city that is home to some very progressive Housing First programs (like Pathways to Housing), is also home to some very backward ideas about how to end homelessness. This article is about Mayor Bloomberg’s recent decision to enforce a 1997 state law that requires residents who are staying in one the city’s publicly run shelters “to pay a certain portion of their income”. People like Dacosta who are working a minimum wage job and trying to pick themselves up by the boot-straps are now going to have to pay hundreds of dollars to stay in the shelters. This is money that could be saved up for a security deposit or to pay off debts or loans. People like Dacosta will never be able to get ahead if they cannot save up money to make the transition out of a shelter.

Bloomberg’s decision to enforce this law is a great example of social welfare policies that support a person only enough to just get by. With these kinds of policies all it takes is one emergency and the person is locked into a spiral of debt that they may never be able to get out of. Social welfare policies should help a person establish a firm base from which they can make real progress to get out of poverty. Guaranteeing that a person will have a home, regardless of income, is an important way to establish a firm base. Bloomberg’s policy will only hamper the efforts of anyone attempting to get out of poverty.

New York Charges Rent for Working Homeless

Robert Stolarik for The New York Times

May 9, 2009

New York Charges Rent for Working Homeless

The Bloomberg administration has quietly begun charging rent to homeless families who live in publicly run shelters but have income from jobs.

The new policy is based on a 1997 state law that was not enforced until last week, when shelter operators across the city began requiring residents to pay a certain portion of their income. The amount varies based on factors that include family size and what shelter is being used, but should not exceed 50 percent of a family’s income, a state official said.

Vanessa Dacosta, who earns $8.40 an hour as a cashier at Sbarro, received a notice under her door several weeks ago informing her that she had to give $336 of her approximately $800 per month in wages to the Clinton Family Inn, a shelter in Hell’s Kitchen where she has lived since March.

“It’s not right,” said Ms. Dacosta, a single mother of a 2-year-old who said she spends nearly $100 a week on child care. “I pay my baby sitter, I buy diapers, and I’m trying to save money so I can get out of here. I don’t want to be in the shelter forever.”

City officials said the new rent requirement had been in the works since a 2007 state audit that forced them to pay back $2.4 million in state housing aid that should have been covered by homeless families with income. They argued that homeless people with income should be expected to pay for a portion of their shelter costs, a model that echoes the federal Section 8 housing voucher program.

“I think it’s hard to argue that families that can contribute to their shelter cost shouldn’t,” Robert V. Hess, the city’s commissioner of homeless services, said in a telephone interview Friday. “I don’t see this playing out in an adverse way. Our objective is not for families to remain in shelter. Our objective is to move families back into their own homes and into the community.”

It is unclear why the state law has not been enforced until now. New York’s situation is unusual, with far more working homeless families than elsewhere in the state, and higher housing costs than virtually anywhere in the country.

Anthony Farmer, a spokesman for the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, said the new policy will eventually affect about 2,000 of the more than 9,000 families in New York City shelters. More than 500 families have been informed that they were expected to begin paying rent on May 1.

City officials said they started with families who are new to shelters, and would phase in the new approach over the next several months, including for people who are on welfare and are also working. They could not yet estimate how much it would raise.

A flier posted in one shelter last week warned residents in bold, underlined type, “Failure to make the required contributions could result in the loss of your family’s temporary housing.”

But advocates for the homeless said the new policy was punitive and counterproductive, and some shelter residents, in protest, have already refused to sign the documents acknowledging receipt of the rent notifications.

“Families have been told to pay up or get out,” said Steven Banks, the attorney in chief for the Legal Aid Society. “The policy is poorly conceived, but even more alarmingly, it’s being poorly executed. What is happening is that we have seen cases of families being unilaterally told, without any notice of how the rent was calculated, that they must pay certain amounts of rent or leave the shelter. We’ve already had a case of a survivor of domestic violence who was actually locked out of her room.”

Mr. Hess acknowledged that if a family does not pay the required rent, it could be told to leave the shelter, but he noted that residents can contest the rent required through a state hearing.

Ms. Dacosta, for one, said she had spoken with her caseworker and demanded a hearing. Martha Gonzalez, who is 49 and lives with her 19-year-old son in a rundown shelter in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, said she was informed last week that she owes $1,099 in monthly rent on a $1,700 monthly income as a security guard in Midtown. She said she planned to contest the rent demand in court.

Patrick Markee, the senior policy analyst of the Coalition for the Homeless, called the policy “impractical,” arguing that most working people who live in homeless shelters earn low wages and would be better off saving for a place of their own. “It’s going to make families stay in shelter longer because they’ll have fewer financial resources,” he said.

“They are taking money from them that could otherwise be used to help themselves get out of the shelter system,” agreed Arnold S. Cohen, the president and chief executive of the Partnership for the Homeless. “We’re dealing with the poorest people, the people who are the most in need, and we’re asking them to pay for a shelter of last resort. As a city and a state that has a history of social and economic justice, I think we can do better than that.”

With the looming 40% increase in fuel costs reported by National Grid, this article from Business First of Louisville is a reminder of the significant increase in the basic cost of living for many Americans. There can be no doubt that energy bills per month are much higher in Buffalo.

Moreover, these figures are taken during the month of August and therefore reflect gas costs outside of winter.

What is desperately needed if low-income families are expected to keep up with the high cost of heat would be:

1) Raise the welfare grant to reflect true cost of living. Currently, TANF allots $54/month for heating costs. This does not reflect the true cost of heat.
2) Support the development of green building policies and weatherization programs. These policies would not only increase the energy efficiency of homes throughout New York State but would also support construction jobs, thereby strengthening our economy from the ground up. Low-income families living in more energy efficient homes would be able to save the money currently being thrown away on gas, or spend it on other basic needs such as transportation or health care.

City Settles Lawsuit Over Homeless Families

Updated, 1:09 p.m. | The Bloomberg administration has decided to settle a longstanding class-action lawsuit over homeless families’ access to shelter in New York City, ending costly litigation that has dragged on since May 1983, through four mayoral administrations. The settlement, which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced at a news conference this morning, comes as city officials acknowledge that the mayor’s plan to reduce homelessness by two-thirds by 2009 has fallen far short of it goals.

While the number of homeless single adults has fallen a bit, the number of homeless families has risen. There are about 9,000 homeless families, including about 14,000 children, sleeping in city shelters every night this month. City spending on homelessness prevention has risen, to $191.2 million in 2007 from $160.6 million in 2004, and spending on homeless shelters has grown to $603.5 million from $563.4 million, the city’s Independent Budget Office found in a study [pdf] last month.

The main lawsuit being settled, McCain v. Koch, was filed in 1983 by the Legal Aid Society to draw attention to the plight of homeless families, after similar lawsuits had been filed over the rights of homeless men and women. Those lawsuits had resulted in the establishment, unusual in the United States, of a right to shelter in New York City.

The McCain suit argued that the city had failed to provide adequate shelter or develop standards governing shelter for families. (The named plaintiff in the suit was Yvonne McCain, who was evicted from a Brooklyn apartment in 1982 after withholding rent to protest her landlord’s refusal to make repairs.)

Over the years, related lawsuits were filed arguing, like the McCain case, that homeless families were improperly denied shelter or even barred from applying for it; those lawsuits, too, are part of today’s settlement.

A court-appointed panel of special masters had urged an end to the litigation nearly three years ago. But the litigation resumed in 2005, after a two-year hiatus. The city moved in 2006 to dismiss the lawsuit, saying it had taken major steps to transform the system, but the case dragged. The settlement announced today occurred after talks between the city’s top lawyer, Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo, and Steven M. Banks, attorney in chief at the Legal Aid Society.

Under the settlement, the parties agreed a new case would be filed and, following a class action settlement hearing, all cases against the city and state, as well as the new one, would be dismissed. The city will regain full control and oversight of its family services system, “no longer having to enforce over 40 highly-detailed court orders or spend precious staff time and agency resources complying with or litigating these cases,” City Hall said in a statement.

The statement added:

As part of the settlement, the parties have agreed that New York City would continue its long-standing interpretation of state and local laws ensuring safe and decent emergency shelter for homeless families with children. The settlement also includes provisions that outline current agency standards and protocols for assessing shelter eligibility; under the terms of the agreement, these provisions sunset on Dec. 31, 2010, unless the agency were to be found in “systemic non-compliance” with its provisions in a separate successful litigation.